BISHOP ENDINGS AN INNOVATIVE COURSE

Transcription

1 BISHOP ENDINGS AN INNOVATIVE COURSE by Efstratios Grivas

2 Managing Editor Romain Edouard Assistant Editor Daniël Vanheirzeele Graphic Artist Philippe Tonnard Cover design Iwan Kerkhof Typesetting i-press First edition 2017 by Thinkers Publishing Bishop Endings: An Innovative Course Copyright 2017 Efstratios Grivas All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior written permission from the publisher. ISBN D/2017/13730/12 All sales or enquiries should be directed to Thinkers Publishing, 9000 Gent, Belgium. info@thinkerspublishing.com website:

3 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS 3 KEY TO SYMBOLS 5 FOREWORD 7 BIBLIOGRAPHY 9 1. BISHOP VS PAWNS TWO BISHOPS VS KNIGHT CAPABLANCA S BISHOP THEOREM BISHOP & PAWNS VS PAWNS WRONG CORNER THE EXTRA WRONG BISHOP BISHOP & PAWNS VS PAWNS THE PHALANX BISHOP ENDING ISOLATED PAWN BISHOP ENDING POSITIONAL ADVANTAGE BISHOP ENDING PAWN-UP BISHOP VS VARIOUS MATERIAL 147 EXERCISES 155 SOLUTIONS 159

4 KEY TO SYMBOLS! a good move? a weak move!! an excellent move?? a blunder!? an interesing move?! a dubious move only move = equality unclear position with compensation for the sacrificed material White stands slightly better Black stands slightly better White has a serious advantage Black has a serious advantage +- White has a decisive advantage -+ Black has a decisive advantage with an attack with initiative with counterplay with the idea of better is worse is N novelty + check # mate

5 FOREWORD Being the Editor in Chief of TP, I expected nothing less from such an experienced trainer as GM Grivas! Nevertheless, I was really pleased with how complete and well-chosen the games and positions he presents here are. This publication is an almost exhaustive collection of all you can find about bishop endings it is ready knowledge : you will learn hundreds of rules, patterns and key positions. The author guides you through the examples in a highly instructive and easy-to-understand way. Reading the whole book, you should focus on two important issues. The first, a temporary one; your knowledge of theoretical positions. Temporary because this requires refreshment over time, depending on your memory. This is normal - even the best GM s in the world need to recheck many theoretical endgames from time to time. The second, a permanent one; you will gain a general understanding of bishop endings that will give you a considerable head start in reproducing them in your own games, without the extra effort usually required. That is, if you work enough on the issues that you were struggling a bit to understand! Some of the exercises are also surprising - and I mean in a positive way! Again, I believe they are presented in the most instructive way so take your time to understand the maze of these bishop endings. All-in-all, I was delighted to edit this book and I am looking forward to the author s next epic publication, with new pieces of the chess board being covered. Thank you, Efstratios! Romain Edouard

6 1. BISHOP VS PAWNS A primitive theme is the one of a single bishop vs pawns. A bishop easily achieves a draw when fighting against a pawn, with a few very specific exceptions. For examining the various cases, we have to draw up some rules: When pitted against two pawns, provided these have not crossed their 4 th rank, the bishop can achieve the draw. Otherwise, the result depends on whether its king can stop one of the pawns. With two pawns on their 5 th rank, the placement of the kings is a decisive factor. When the pawns are separated by at least two ranks, and are advanced at least up to their 5 th rank, the bishop is unable to control their further march. Example 1 Henry Otten Study vl mk P+-+K+P+ This position is an exceptional one, but clearly shows the weakness of the bishop. Were the black king on any other square, the game would be drawn. 1.a5 f8 2. d5 h6 3.g5+! xg5 Or 3... xg5 4.a e4 h4 5. f3! 1-0

7 12 BISHOP ENDINGS: AN INNOVATIVE COURSE 54.h4! Loek Van Wely Zoltan Almasi Groningen 1995 Best by test the bishop is torn in two! 54.c7? xc7 55. xc7 c5= or 54. c8? a5 55.h4 c5= If a bishop has a vital task on one diagonal, it loses all power on the other diagonal! 1-0 Two connected pawns can generally be immobilised by the bishop, but not when they have already reached their 6 th rank. Viktor Gavrikov Yury Chikovani Beltsy vl K P mk P mkl 4 PmK zp In positions involving connected pawns, things can get wild... In the game, White tried a5 1. c5 f6 2. d6 d1 Black employs a standard technique, which M.Dvoretsky calls pawns in the crosshairs attacking the enemy pawns with the bishop. The idea behind this is to force the white pawns to advance to opposite-coloured squares from the bishop, so it can block them and they can t advance any further without the help of their king. In this way the attacking king is deflected, making room for the defending king to come back and defend. (2... f7? 3.b4 e8 4. c7 d1 5.b5!+-) 3.a5 e2 4.b4 f1 5. c6 e7 6.b5 d8= or 6... xb5+= f6 2.b4 e5!

8 1. BISHOP VS PAWNS 13 Black is saved by another, also quite widespread, technique: the tailhook tying the king to the rearmost pawn from behind, writes M.Dvoretsky. Wrong is: 2... e7 3.b5 d7? (3... d1? 4.b6! d7 5. a6+-; 3... d6!=) 4. a6! (but not 4. b6? d1! 5.a5 e2= once again, pawns in the crosshairs ) 4... c8 5. a7+- Of this scheme of interaction between king and pawns, securing their passage to the queening square, M.Dvoretsky suggested labelling it as autopilot. 3.b5 d4 4. b6 White can no longer stay on autopilot: 4.b6 f3 5. a6 (5. b5 e2+ 6. c6 c4 followed by... f3+) 5... c5 6.a5 b4!= the tail-hook (M.Dvoretsky) f c4 transposes. 5.a5 c4 6.a6 b4 7.a7 One more thing needs to be done now: 7... a8! And it s a draw due to 8. a6 c5 9.b6 c6=; but not 7... g2? which fails to 8. a6 c5 9.b6 f b7 g c7+-. ½-½ The one-diagonal principle is an important asset. The bishop is optimally placed when it can stop and generally control all the opponent pawns on one diagonal. This is easier said than done; but fulfilling all functions from a single diagonal is a must! Example 2 Mark Dvoretsky Study vlk mk-+p pzp- 4 -+p+-+-+ White saves himself with a pawn sacrifice: 1.g6! The primitive 1. f6? f4 2. d6 f3 3. d4 leads to a loss after 3...c3!-+. A pattern M.Dvoretsky calls the pants. A nice expression I had never heard of before! The author of the study explains it as follows: The bishop stops pawns on two different diagonals, but advancing one of the pawns means the bishop must give up its guard over the other. Sometimes,

9 14 BISHOP ENDINGS: AN INNOVATIVE COURSE the bishop is not holding a passed pawn on one of the two diagonals, but defending its own pawn, or some other important point. For all practical purposes, this is the same thing: advancing a pawn pulls the bishop away from fulfilling its other obligation. (M.Dvoretsky). 1...fxg6 Rather than taking the pawn, Black could try 1...f6!? 2. d6! (2. xf6? f4-+ The pants, remember?) 2... f8 (2... f4? 3. e7! f3 4. e6 f2 5.g7+-) 3. d5= or 3. c5= with a draw. 2. g5 The one-diagonal principle! The bishop now fulfils both functions from a single diagonal, c1-h6, which allows White to draw without difficulty, explains M.Dvoretsky. ½-½ Three pawns against a lone bishop win when they have all crossed their 4 th rank (there exist a few exceptions, though). The defence of the side with the bishop consists of the immobilisation of the pawns, but this is hard to achieve when the pawns are far-advanced. The basic idea of the defence is to immobilise at least two pawns and prevent them from reaching their 7 th rank. Naturally, against four or more pawns the bishop is unable to defend f5 Example zp zpkzp K vl f3+ is an inferior attempt: 2. g1!! f5 (2... f4 3. d2+) 3. a5 g4 4. d8 h3 5. c7 e4 6. f2 and Black can make no progress. It is worth noting that if White was to move, then he would be able to draw with 1. a5! f5 (1...f3+ 2. f2) 2. d8! Yes, the bishop is a strong piece! 2. a5 2. h3 e4 3. g4 e3! also loses. 2...g4 3. d8 h3+ 4. h2 e4 5. b6 f3 6. c7 e3 7. b8 f3 8. g1 e2 9. a7 h xh2 f2 11. xf2 xf2 12. h1 g3! 0-1

10 1. BISHOP VS PAWNS 15 Marcin Chmiel Arkadiusz Skawinski Krakow c1! The correct follow-up c3? was played in another game and Black lost after 62.h7! g7 (62... b2 63.f6+-) 63. e6 xh7 (63... h8 64.f6 b2 65. f7 c3 66. e8! [66.g6? xf6!=] b2 [66... xh7 67. f7!+-] 67.f7 a3 68.f8 + xf8 69. xf8 xh7 70. f7 h8 71. g6! g8 72. h6+-) 64. f7 h8 65.g6 b2 66.f6 1-0 Minev,N-Dukanovic Belgrade g6+ Or 62.h7 g7 63.g6 b2 (63... h8 64.f6 b2 65.f7 a3 66. e6 g7=) 64. e6 h8! (64... c3? 65.f6+! xf6 66.h8 + xh8 67. xf6+-) 65.f6 xf6 66. xf6 stalemate! e7 63.h7 b2 64. e4 g7 65. f4 f6 66. g4 h8 67. h5 xf5 68. h6 f6 ½-½ Spyridon Skembris Antonios Vragoteris Rhodos k zp 5 +-+K+PzP- 2 -vl L zpp+p mk mk-+ A drawn position c4 57. e2? 57. c8! e4 58. e2 transposes to the game e4? Centralisation as principle, but Black could win here with g3! 58. b7 d4 59. d5 c3 60. c4 f4 61. d3 (61. d3 f3 62. xd4 c2-+) 61...f f1 f2 63. e4 f c8! e5 59. d g8 is fine as well.

11 16 BISHOP ENDINGS: AN INNOVATIVE COURSE Also good is 59. f3 d4 (59...c3 60. e3 d d3 f4 62. d7=) 60. a6 d5 61. c8 d3 62. xf5 d4 63. f2! c3 64. e1 e3 65. xd3 (65. d1=) xd3 66. d1= e4 60. c8 e5 The alternative try is 60...f4 61. g4! d4 62. f3+ e5 63. d2! d6 64. c2 c5 65. d2 (65. h5 b4 66. e2=) b4 66. c2 d3+ (66...c3 67. d3 b3 68. d1+ b2 69. xd4=) 67. d2 b3 68. d5 f3 69. e3! (69. xf3? c xd3 c2-+) b4 70. xf3= but not 70. xf3? c3 71. e3 a3! 72. xd3 b d7 f4 ½-½ Grzegorz Lukasiewicz Dmitry Gurevich Geneve e3! And White resigned, as the sample variations can justify: 57. c3 (57. e6 d4 58. b3 f4 59. c4 g4 60. d3 [60. xc5 g3 61. d5 d3-+] f3!-+) 57...d c4 f4 59. d3 (59. xc5 d3 60. a6 d2 61. e2 g4-+) 59...g4 60. e2 c4 61. b7 g3 62. c8 c3 63. d7 (63. d3 f3-+) f4 64. c8 c2 65. d2 d3 66. b7 g3 67. g2 e5 68. b7 d4 69. c6 c4 70. e4 b3 71. c1 c3 72. xd3 g Example 4 Sam Loyd Study L zpp+-zp mk K zp-zp zp zp-+-zp-+k+-+-zp mk-+-zpl zp 1. d7+ a3 2. c6! a2 3. c2! ½-½ A slightly different position, but here the result is clear Black wins.

12 1. BISHOP VS PAWNS 17 Example 5 Fortress Example 7 Fortress Example 6 Fortress Example 8 Fortress 8 -+k p zp mk L+ 7 vlk zp mk k vl-+- 6 PmK mk zp P+K L+-+-

13 18 BISHOP ENDINGS: AN INNOVATIVE COURSE Example 9 Fortress Example 11 Fortress Example 10 Fortress Example 12 Fortress 8 -mk zp P+K vl mk zpp P mkl k p zp-mk vl-+- 8 k p+k vl zp All the above examples (4 to 12) are theoretical draws (fortresses) and must be remembered, but the next example is highly important as well.

14 1. BISHOP VS PAWNS 19 Example 13 Vasily Smyslov Study f1! xf1 1...c2 2. d2 xf1 3.f4!! see the main line. 2.f4!! The usual stuff, preparing the known fortress! Note that 2.d5? g2 3.d6 f7 loses g2 2...gxf3? 3.a7. 5.d5! k P p pzp-+p+ 3 +-zpl+-zpp 2 -+-sn-zp-zp mk-+- 7 zp-+-+k p pzplzpp+ 3 +-zp-+-zpp zp 1 +-+K+-+- The white king must attack the c- pawns! 5... xd5 6. c2 e6 7. xc3 d7 8.a8 xa8 9. xc4 White will bring his king to g1 and secure the known-drawn position. ½-½ We will conclude with two very instructive examples, where the pawns prevailed over the bishop. 3. d1! 3.a7? is erroneous in view of 3... f e4 4.a7 Or 4.d f7

15 20 BISHOP ENDINGS: AN INNOVATIVE COURSE Gerald Hertneck Predrag Nikolic Munich 1994 White cannot protect all his pawns (the bishop should be on g5) and he is losing. 54. b3 f3 55. c4 g4 56. e1 56. b5 loses to xh4 57. xb6 g xf4 57. d4 b5 58. b4 If 58. c5 Black wins with e3 59. xb5 f4 60. c5 f3 61. d5 f2 62. xf2+ xf2 63. e5 g g4 59. e1 59. e7 f4 60. e4 f3 61. e3 g f4 60. d2+ g4 61. e1 g5! Creating three passed pawns! 62.hxg5 xg5 63. e3 g4 64. f2 White resigned: 64...h4 65. d2 h3 66. b4 f4 67. c5 f3 68. g1 f5 69. h2 b Gata Kamsky Paul Van der Sterren Wijk aan Zee zp- 6 -zp p+p kzp-zp 2 K+-vL k p+-+p+p 4 p+-mk P 2 -+-vl-+-+ Back has three passed pawns but White can hold the draw a3 69. b4 a2 70. c3 b4 71. a1 Also good was 71. b2! d6 (71... f6 72. e3+ g5 73. f3 h4 74. g2=) 72. a1 b3 (72...h4 73. c4 c6 74. b3 d5 [74...f4? 75. xa2 f3 76. d4+-] 75. xa2 e4=; c6 73. e5 c5 74. xf5 c4 75. e4 h4=) 73. c4 f4 74. d4 f3 75. e3 c5 76. xf3 b4 77. b2 h4= d6

16 1. BISHOP VS PAWNS mk p+p 4 -zp-mk P 2 p vl c4? A desicive blunder. White could hold the draw by 72.h4! b3 (72... e6 73. b2! [73. c4? f4 74. d4 f5-+] d6 74. a1=; c6? 73. e5 c5 74. xf5 c4 75. e4 b3 76. d3+-; 72...f4? 73. e4 c5 74. xf4 c4 75. e3 b3 76. d3+-) 73. c4 c6 (73...f4? 74. d4! [74. xb3? f3-+] 74...f3 75. e3 d5 76. xf3 c4 77. e2 b4 78. d2 a3 79. c3+-) 74. xb3 d5= c6! 73. b3 White now loses in all variations: 73. d4 b5 74. d3 a4 75. c2 f4-+; or 73. d4 f4 74. b3 d5-+ or 73.h4 f4 74. d3 (74. d4 b5 75. e4 c4-+) d5 75. h8 f3 76. e3 c4-+; or 73. xb4 d5 74. c3 (74. b3 f4-+) e4 75. d2 f3 76. c2 g2 77. b3 f4 78. xa2 f3 79. d4 f2 80. xf2 xf2 81. b2 g3 82. c2 xh3 83. d2 g d5 74. xa2 f4 75. f6 f3 76. h4 d4 77. b3 e3 78. xb4 f2 79. xf2+ xf2 White resigned, as his king cannot reach the saving square f Conclusion A draw is a very likely result, however the distant pawns make the bishop s life miserable.